Photo of Varalika Dev

Associate in the Disputes Practice at the Delhi - NCR office of Cyril Amarchand Mangaldas. Varalika focuses mainly on civil, environmental and complex commercial litigation (including Writ Proceedings) before multiple forums, including inter alia the NCLT/NCLAT, ATFE, NGT, High Courts and the Supreme Court of India. She also regularly advises on commercial contracts, with an emphasis on EPC contracts, and can be reached at varalika.dev@cyrilshroff.com”

 

Harshness of Consequences not a Ground to Read-Down a Provision: Supreme Court

Introduction:

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Authorised Officer, Central Bank of India v. Shanmugavelu[1]adjudicated, inter alia, upon (i) whether the forfeiture of the earnest-money deposit under Rule 9(5)[2] of the SARFAESI Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules (“SARFAESI Rules”) can be only to the extent of loss or damages incurred by the Bank/secured creditor, in consonance with the underlying ethos of Sections 73 and 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“Contract Act”)? In other words, whether, the forfeiture of the entire earnest money deposit under the SARFAESI Rules amounts to unjust enrichment?; and (ii) whether the principle of “reading down” of a provision should be employed even in situations where the provision, in its plain meaning, is unambiguous and valid, but results in an allegedly ‘harsh’ consequence.Continue Reading Harshness of Consequences not a Ground to Read-Down a Provision: Supreme Court

‘Party’ and ‘witness’ on an equal footing for the purpose of adducing evidence in civil suit: Supreme Court clarifies

Introduction

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its recent judgment in Mohammed Abdul Wahid v. Nilofer & Anr.,[1] adjudicated inter alia upon whether the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) makes a distinction between a ‘party to a suit’ and a ‘witness in a suit’ through its adopted phraseology? More specifically, whether a party to a suit i.e. a plaintiff or a defendant may be equated to a witness when interpreting the provisions of Order VII Rule 14 [Production of document on which plaintiff sues or relies]; Order VIII Rule 1A(4)(a) [Duty of Defendant to produce documents upon which relief is claimed or relied upon by him]; and Order XIII Rule 1(3)(a) [Original Documents to be produced at or before the settlement of issues] of the CPC?Continue Reading ‘Party’ and ‘witness’ on an equal footing for the purpose of adducing evidence in civil suit: Supreme Court clarifies

Arbitral clause contemplating ambiguous pre-deposit condition is violative of Article 14: Supreme Court holds in a Section 11(6) application

Introduction

The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its recent judgment in Lombardi Engineering Ltd. v. State of Uttarakhand[1] adjudicated inter alia upon whether, when deciding an application under Section 11(6) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996[2] (“1996 Act”), for appointment of a sole arbitrator, the validity of a pre-deposit condition can be looked into on the anvil of Article 14 of the Constitution of India?Continue Reading Arbitral clause contemplating ambiguous pre-deposit condition is violative of Article 14: Supreme Court holds in a Section 11(6) application